There will always be an Other boogeyman to help governments shield themselves from accountability or efforts to do ___. If it isn't a higher level of domestic Government then it's an international acronym. If it isn't an international acronym it's 'the market' writ large or something else like that. There's always another red herring.
Hell, wasn't a major driving policy complaint about the EU with immigration something that the UK literally had 100% control over and just never bothered to alter?
Huh that is exactly the problem dude. The government wanting something and then pretending the EU wants it and they're powerless to stop it.
But there aren't any other international acronyms that can write laws for member states. Sure, governments will try to avoid accountability but there aren't any other ways they can do so easily.
I'm an American and have been watching this with more and more interest. It's hard for me to glean political subtexts of another country, so I'm sorry if I'm off base here, but the narrative of this guy seems that the EU is going to destroy the Great British Empire through a ameba-like annexation of their sovereign lands.
It seems that he doesn't understand that in 1997 Hong Kong was handed to China, and on that day the Great British Empire died. He now resides on a little island that's smaller than my state of Wisconsin. A state, mind you, I spent a few hours to cross so I could have a date in Minnesota. Those days of having far flung colonies and companies so powerful they have their own military are over. Speaking on behalf on a country that was once was under British rule, I want to let him know that the planet is shrinking, and it's getting smaller every day. Talking to my friend in Japan, who is 6,168 miles away, requires 5 clicks of a mouse, or two taps on my phone. There is no war, and we need learn to snuggle with our neighbors. Heck, my neigbor's Illinois, so it's not *that* bad.
Of course, when we have space colonies, it will be this crap all over again until someone accidentally drops a Lagrangian colony on Australia.
There will always be an Other boogeyman to help governments shield themselves from accountability or efforts to do ___. If it isn't a higher level of domestic Government then it's an international acronym. If it isn't an international acronym it's 'the market' writ large or something else like that. There's always another red herring.
Hell, wasn't a major driving policy complaint about the EU with immigration something that the UK literally had 100% control over and just never bothered to alter?
Huh that is exactly the problem dude. The government wanting something and then pretending the EU wants it and they're powerless to stop it.
And leaving the EU doesn't change that. Only now it's the mean old UN or EFTA or something else.
But there aren't any other international acronyms that can write laws for member states. Sure, governments will try to avoid accountability but there aren't any other ways they can do so easily.
International treaties are binding law with enforcement mechanisms. The WTO promulgates rules or decisions that bar certain trade laws from being enacted or enforceable without losing out on the treaty's benefits. And pulling out of the EU won't actually make the Government more accountable because they'll blame something else for their inaction. Westminster blamed the EU for something it had no power over. Calling bullshit on that won't be more effective when they claim another body that isn't doing anything to stop them is really to blame.
I'm an American and have been watching this with more and more interest. It's hard for me to glean political subtexts of another country, so I'm sorry if I'm off base here, but the narrative of this guy seems that the EU is going to destroy the Great British Empire through a ameba-like annexation of their sovereign lands.
It seems that he doesn't understand that in 1997 Hong Kong was handed to China, and on that day the Great British Empire died. He now resides on a little island that's smaller than my state of Wisconsin. A state, mind you, I spent a few hours to cross so I could have a date in Minnesota. Those days of having far flung colonies and companies so powerful they have their own military are over. Speaking on behalf on a country that was once was under British rule, I want to let him know that the planet is shrinking, and it's getting smaller every day. Talking to my friend in Japan, who is 6,168 miles away, requires 5 clicks of a mouse, or two taps on my phone. There is no war, and we need learn to snuggle with our neighbors. Heck, my neigbor's Illinois, so it's not *that* bad.
Of course, when we have space colonies, it will be this crap all over again until someone accidentally drops an UC on Australia.
I forgot the point I was making...
What? The empire died with Suez.
There is a war on, a quiet one of authoritarian states on the liberal order, and that's why we need the EU.
So, I know everyone needs a laugh, even if it is a strangled one that trails off into a sob. So, good news! Marina Hyde has filed again. There's a Sherlock Holmes gag in there which genuinely got a laugh, even while I was working out how to move money out of the country (yes, obviously, quickly, and yes it is a bit late now).
There will always be an Other boogeyman to help governments shield themselves from accountability or efforts to do ___. If it isn't a higher level of domestic Government then it's an international acronym. If it isn't an international acronym it's 'the market' writ large or something else like that. There's always another red herring.
Hell, wasn't a major driving policy complaint about the EU with immigration something that the UK literally had 100% control over and just never bothered to alter?
Huh that is exactly the problem dude. The government wanting something and then pretending the EU wants it and they're powerless to stop it.
And leaving the EU doesn't change that. Only now it's the mean old UN or EFTA or something else.
But there aren't any other international acronyms that can write laws for member states. Sure, governments will try to avoid accountability but there aren't any other ways they can do so easily.
International treaties are binding law with enforcement mechanisms. The WTO promulgates rules or decisions that bar certain trade laws from being enacted or enforceable without losing out on the treaty's benefits. And pulling out of the EU won't actually make the Government more accountable because they'll blame something else for their inaction. Westminster blamed the EU for something it had no power over. Calling bullshit on that won't be more effective when they claim another body that isn't doing anything to stop them is really to blame.
The UN has zero power over anyone's domestic affairs. And nobody is obligated to enter into treaties and treaties aren't organizations. EU members are obligated to adopt EU law or quit the organization.
And fair point about the WTO, but these criticisms very much apply to the WTO too. If anything the WTO is worse in some regards.
Also the US currently has several "far flung colonies".
There is definitely a strong component of misplaced Empire nostalgia in a lot of the leave narratives, but painting the situation as the result merely of a few stuck-in-the-past farts refusing to catch up with the modern world is ... an extremely limited perspective.
There will always be an Other boogeyman to help governments shield themselves from accountability or efforts to do ___. If it isn't a higher level of domestic Government then it's an international acronym. If it isn't an international acronym it's 'the market' writ large or something else like that. There's always another red herring.
Hell, wasn't a major driving policy complaint about the EU with immigration something that the UK literally had 100% control over and just never bothered to alter?
Huh that is exactly the problem dude. The government wanting something and then pretending the EU wants it and they're powerless to stop it.
And leaving the EU doesn't change that. Only now it's the mean old UN or EFTA or something else.
But there aren't any other international acronyms that can write laws for member states. Sure, governments will try to avoid accountability but there aren't any other ways they can do so easily.
International treaties are binding law with enforcement mechanisms. The WTO promulgates rules or decisions that bar certain trade laws from being enacted or enforceable without losing out on the treaty's benefits. And pulling out of the EU won't actually make the Government more accountable because they'll blame something else for their inaction. Westminster blamed the EU for something it had no power over. Calling bullshit on that won't be more effective when they claim another body that isn't doing anything to stop them is really to blame.
The UN has zero power over anyone's domestic affairs. And nobody is obligated to enter into treaties and treaties aren't organizations. EU members are obligated to adopt EU law or quit the organization.
And fair point about the WTO, but these criticisms very much apply to the WTO too. If anything the WTO is worse in some regards.
And? People have literally blamed the UN for bike lanes. The fact that it doesn't actually prevent the government from doing something won't stop the government from shifting blame. Like it literally did with not implementing tighter immigration rules that were completely allowed by the EU. The EU didn't bar them, but somehow it was still the EU's fault for barring them. What about that will change next month? Calling it bullshit will take marginally fewer sentences?
+12
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
There will always be an Other boogeyman to help governments shield themselves from accountability or efforts to do ___. If it isn't a higher level of domestic Government then it's an international acronym. If it isn't an international acronym it's 'the market' writ large or something else like that. There's always another red herring.
Hell, wasn't a major driving policy complaint about the EU with immigration something that the UK literally had 100% control over and just never bothered to alter?
Huh that is exactly the problem dude. The government wanting something and then pretending the EU wants it and they're powerless to stop it.
And leaving the EU doesn't change that. Only now it's the mean old UN or EFTA or something else.
But there aren't any other international acronyms that can write laws for member states. Sure, governments will try to avoid accountability but there aren't any other ways they can do so easily.
International treaties are binding law with enforcement mechanisms. The WTO promulgates rules or decisions that bar certain trade laws from being enacted or enforceable without losing out on the treaty's benefits. And pulling out of the EU won't actually make the Government more accountable because they'll blame something else for their inaction. Westminster blamed the EU for something it had no power over. Calling bullshit on that won't be more effective when they claim another body that isn't doing anything to stop them is really to blame.
The UN has zero power over anyone's domestic affairs. And nobody is obligated to enter into treaties and treaties aren't organizations. EU members are obligated to adopt EU law or quit the organization.
And fair point about the WTO, but these criticisms very much apply to the WTO too. If anything the WTO is worse in some regards.
And? People have literally blamed the UN for bike lanes. The fact that it doesn't actually prevent the government from doing something won't stop the government from shifting blame. Like it literally did with not implementing tighter immigration rules that were completely allowed by the EU. The EU didn't bar them, but somehow it was still the EU's fault for barring them. What about that will change next month? Calling it bullshit will take marginally fewer sentences?
I mean, the obvious problem is that you can't call bullshit now. We don't know if the government is pushing hard for something in the council or not. We can know if new laws are to blame on the UN or EU, we can't know what the government is doing in the council.
like, just going with Corbyn holding the government accountable for example. If the government were to claim new law are due to the UN, he can call bullshit on that in parliament. If they were to say that they fought very hard to negotiate against something they actually actively pushed for, he can't call bullshit because he doesn't know if that is true or not.
So, I know everyone needs a laugh, even if it is a strangled one that trails off into a sob. So, good news! Marina Hyde has filed again. There's a Sherlock Holmes gag in there which genuinely got a laugh, even while I was working out how to move money out of the country (yes, obviously, quickly, and yes it is a bit late now).
There's a handy list there, in movie trailer voiceover form:
But if you had to condense the past couple of years into a movie trailer, you’d surely get something that starts out suggesting a romantic comedy, before the voiceover kicks into a much pacier and more urgent register, and swiftly descends into the demented disaster movie genre. “How far would YOU go to keep the Conservative party from splitting?” it would begin breezily. “Would you offer people a choice one crazy summer? Would you call half your country citizens of nowhere? Would you deport people with British children who have lived here for 24 years? Would you start saying things like, ‘there will be adequate food’?
“Would you declare it was worth running the car industry down because ‘these things happen’? Would you demand Ireland leave the EU because you’ve shat the bed? Would you watch people be warned of essential medicine shortages? Would you tell schools that they’ll have to be flexible over food standards? Would you refuse to rule out deaths from drug shortages? Would you write some insane column wanking over rationing cookbooks for a war you were born after? Would you stockpile trauma packs out of concerns over risk to life? Would you –”
STOP. Christ… what are we even watching? Is The Rock in this one? He’d better be, because any minute now the freeway’s going to collapse and the only way out is him slinging us over his shoulder and physically carrying us to safety. We have reached the stage in our national journey where we must rely on the kindness of strangers in torn tank tops.
There will always be an Other boogeyman to help governments shield themselves from accountability or efforts to do ___. If it isn't a higher level of domestic Government then it's an international acronym. If it isn't an international acronym it's 'the market' writ large or something else like that. There's always another red herring.
Hell, wasn't a major driving policy complaint about the EU with immigration something that the UK literally had 100% control over and just never bothered to alter?
Huh that is exactly the problem dude. The government wanting something and then pretending the EU wants it and they're powerless to stop it.
And leaving the EU doesn't change that. Only now it's the mean old UN or EFTA or something else.
But there aren't any other international acronyms that can write laws for member states. Sure, governments will try to avoid accountability but there aren't any other ways they can do so easily.
International treaties are binding law with enforcement mechanisms. The WTO promulgates rules or decisions that bar certain trade laws from being enacted or enforceable without losing out on the treaty's benefits. And pulling out of the EU won't actually make the Government more accountable because they'll blame something else for their inaction. Westminster blamed the EU for something it had no power over. Calling bullshit on that won't be more effective when they claim another body that isn't doing anything to stop them is really to blame.
The UN has zero power over anyone's domestic affairs. And nobody is obligated to enter into treaties and treaties aren't organizations. EU members are obligated to adopt EU law or quit the organization.
And fair point about the WTO, but these criticisms very much apply to the WTO too. If anything the WTO is worse in some regards.
And? People have literally blamed the UN for bike lanes. The fact that it doesn't actually prevent the government from doing something won't stop the government from shifting blame. Like it literally did with not implementing tighter immigration rules that were completely allowed by the EU. The EU didn't bar them, but somehow it was still the EU's fault for barring them. What about that will change next month? Calling it bullshit will take marginally fewer sentences?
I mean, the obvious problem is that you can't call bullshit now. We don't know if the government is pushing hard for something in the council or not. We can know if new laws are to blame on the UN or EU, we can't know what the government is doing in the council.
like, just going with Corbyn holding the government accountable for example. If the government were to claim new law are due to the UN, he can call bullshit on that in parliament. If they were to say that they fought very hard to negotiate against something they actually actively pushed for, he can't call bullshit because he doesn't know if that is true or not.
Yes you can, and fact checkers do, but people don't care. At least 52% don't, anyway. Or someone puts their lie on the side of a bus and the truth struggles to catch up.
There will always be an Other boogeyman to help governments shield themselves from accountability or efforts to do ___. If it isn't a higher level of domestic Government then it's an international acronym. If it isn't an international acronym it's 'the market' writ large or something else like that. There's always another red herring.
Hell, wasn't a major driving policy complaint about the EU with immigration something that the UK literally had 100% control over and just never bothered to alter?
Huh that is exactly the problem dude. The government wanting something and then pretending the EU wants it and they're powerless to stop it.
And leaving the EU doesn't change that. Only now it's the mean old UN or EFTA or something else.
But there aren't any other international acronyms that can write laws for member states. Sure, governments will try to avoid accountability but there aren't any other ways they can do so easily.
International treaties are binding law with enforcement mechanisms. The WTO promulgates rules or decisions that bar certain trade laws from being enacted or enforceable without losing out on the treaty's benefits. And pulling out of the EU won't actually make the Government more accountable because they'll blame something else for their inaction. Westminster blamed the EU for something it had no power over. Calling bullshit on that won't be more effective when they claim another body that isn't doing anything to stop them is really to blame.
The UN has zero power over anyone's domestic affairs. And nobody is obligated to enter into treaties and treaties aren't organizations. EU members are obligated to adopt EU law or quit the organization.
And fair point about the WTO, but these criticisms very much apply to the WTO too. If anything the WTO is worse in some regards.
And? People have literally blamed the UN for bike lanes. The fact that it doesn't actually prevent the government from doing something won't stop the government from shifting blame. Like it literally did with not implementing tighter immigration rules that were completely allowed by the EU. The EU didn't bar them, but somehow it was still the EU's fault for barring them. What about that will change next month? Calling it bullshit will take marginally fewer sentences?
I mean, the obvious problem is that you can't call bullshit now. We don't know if the government is pushing hard for something in the council or not. We can know if new laws are to blame on the UN or EU, we can't know what the government is doing in the council.
like, just going with Corbyn holding the government accountable for example. If the government were to claim new law are due to the UN, he can call bullshit on that in parliament. If they were to say that they fought very hard to negotiate against something they actually actively pushed for, he can't call bullshit because he doesn't know if that is true or not.
I think that is more an impression created by the way European news media tend to neglect EU politics
There will always be an Other boogeyman to help governments shield themselves from accountability or efforts to do ___. If it isn't a higher level of domestic Government then it's an international acronym. If it isn't an international acronym it's 'the market' writ large or something else like that. There's always another red herring.
Hell, wasn't a major driving policy complaint about the EU with immigration something that the UK literally had 100% control over and just never bothered to alter?
Huh that is exactly the problem dude. The government wanting something and then pretending the EU wants it and they're powerless to stop it.
And leaving the EU doesn't change that. Only now it's the mean old UN or EFTA or something else.
But there aren't any other international acronyms that can write laws for member states. Sure, governments will try to avoid accountability but there aren't any other ways they can do so easily.
International treaties are binding law with enforcement mechanisms. The WTO promulgates rules or decisions that bar certain trade laws from being enacted or enforceable without losing out on the treaty's benefits. And pulling out of the EU won't actually make the Government more accountable because they'll blame something else for their inaction. Westminster blamed the EU for something it had no power over. Calling bullshit on that won't be more effective when they claim another body that isn't doing anything to stop them is really to blame.
The UN has zero power over anyone's domestic affairs. And nobody is obligated to enter into treaties and treaties aren't organizations. EU members are obligated to adopt EU law or quit the organization.
And fair point about the WTO, but these criticisms very much apply to the WTO too. If anything the WTO is worse in some regards.
And? People have literally blamed the UN for bike lanes. The fact that it doesn't actually prevent the government from doing something won't stop the government from shifting blame. Like it literally did with not implementing tighter immigration rules that were completely allowed by the EU. The EU didn't bar them, but somehow it was still the EU's fault for barring them. What about that will change next month? Calling it bullshit will take marginally fewer sentences?
I mean, the obvious problem is that you can't call bullshit now. We don't know if the government is pushing hard for something in the council or not. We can know if new laws are to blame on the UN or EU, we can't know what the government is doing in the council.
like, just going with Corbyn holding the government accountable for example. If the government were to claim new law are due to the UN, he can call bullshit on that in parliament. If they were to say that they fought very hard to negotiate against something they actually actively pushed for, he can't call bullshit because he doesn't know if that is true or not.
Yes you can, and fact checkers do, but people don't care. At least 52% don't, anyway. Or someone puts their lie on the side of a bus and the truth struggles to catch up.
Whether any democratic process is resistant to blatant lies isn't a super productive discussion. Yeah people might still not care, but the ability to at least call bullshit is important still.
Democratic reform of the EU is required regardless of people's gullibility.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
There will always be an Other boogeyman to help governments shield themselves from accountability or efforts to do ___. If it isn't a higher level of domestic Government then it's an international acronym. If it isn't an international acronym it's 'the market' writ large or something else like that. There's always another red herring.
Hell, wasn't a major driving policy complaint about the EU with immigration something that the UK literally had 100% control over and just never bothered to alter?
Huh that is exactly the problem dude. The government wanting something and then pretending the EU wants it and they're powerless to stop it.
And leaving the EU doesn't change that. Only now it's the mean old UN or EFTA or something else.
But there aren't any other international acronyms that can write laws for member states. Sure, governments will try to avoid accountability but there aren't any other ways they can do so easily.
International treaties are binding law with enforcement mechanisms. The WTO promulgates rules or decisions that bar certain trade laws from being enacted or enforceable without losing out on the treaty's benefits. And pulling out of the EU won't actually make the Government more accountable because they'll blame something else for their inaction. Westminster blamed the EU for something it had no power over. Calling bullshit on that won't be more effective when they claim another body that isn't doing anything to stop them is really to blame.
The UN has zero power over anyone's domestic affairs. And nobody is obligated to enter into treaties and treaties aren't organizations. EU members are obligated to adopt EU law or quit the organization.
And fair point about the WTO, but these criticisms very much apply to the WTO too. If anything the WTO is worse in some regards.
And? People have literally blamed the UN for bike lanes. The fact that it doesn't actually prevent the government from doing something won't stop the government from shifting blame. Like it literally did with not implementing tighter immigration rules that were completely allowed by the EU. The EU didn't bar them, but somehow it was still the EU's fault for barring them. What about that will change next month? Calling it bullshit will take marginally fewer sentences?
I mean, the obvious problem is that you can't call bullshit now. We don't know if the government is pushing hard for something in the council or not. We can know if new laws are to blame on the UN or EU, we can't know what the government is doing in the council.
like, just going with Corbyn holding the government accountable for example. If the government were to claim new law are due to the UN, he can call bullshit on that in parliament. If they were to say that they fought very hard to negotiate against something they actually actively pushed for, he can't call bullshit because he doesn't know if that is true or not.
I think that is more an impression created by the way European news media tend to neglect EU politics
Negotiations are frequently held behind closed doors. The opaque nature of the European Council is a different issue from the general neglect of EU politics.
Though I note that the latter is partly due to the former and the general structure of the EU. Neither the Council nor the Commission are directly elected, and the Parliament has no legislative initiative. The most open part of EU politics has no power to debate the direction and goals of the EU, so why care what happens there?
The EU really has a thing where any member state can veto a deal? That's usually a pretty good way to guarantee that very little gets done. I do think the EU is worthwhile if only to reduce the chances of the member states going to war with each other (historically Europe's favorite pastime), but it could do with a bit of improvement. More transparency and democratic accountability would be good starts.
There will always be an Other boogeyman to help governments shield themselves from accountability or efforts to do ___. If it isn't a higher level of domestic Government then it's an international acronym. If it isn't an international acronym it's 'the market' writ large or something else like that. There's always another red herring.
Hell, wasn't a major driving policy complaint about the EU with immigration something that the UK literally had 100% control over and just never bothered to alter?
Huh that is exactly the problem dude. The government wanting something and then pretending the EU wants it and they're powerless to stop it.
And leaving the EU doesn't change that. Only now it's the mean old UN or EFTA or something else.
But there aren't any other international acronyms that can write laws for member states. Sure, governments will try to avoid accountability but there aren't any other ways they can do so easily.
International treaties are binding law with enforcement mechanisms. The WTO promulgates rules or decisions that bar certain trade laws from being enacted or enforceable without losing out on the treaty's benefits. And pulling out of the EU won't actually make the Government more accountable because they'll blame something else for their inaction. Westminster blamed the EU for something it had no power over. Calling bullshit on that won't be more effective when they claim another body that isn't doing anything to stop them is really to blame.
The UN has zero power over anyone's domestic affairs. And nobody is obligated to enter into treaties and treaties aren't organizations. EU members are obligated to adopt EU law or quit the organization.
And fair point about the WTO, but these criticisms very much apply to the WTO too. If anything the WTO is worse in some regards.
And? People have literally blamed the UN for bike lanes. The fact that it doesn't actually prevent the government from doing something won't stop the government from shifting blame. Like it literally did with not implementing tighter immigration rules that were completely allowed by the EU. The EU didn't bar them, but somehow it was still the EU's fault for barring them. What about that will change next month? Calling it bullshit will take marginally fewer sentences?
I mean, the obvious problem is that you can't call bullshit now. We don't know if the government is pushing hard for something in the council or not. We can know if new laws are to blame on the UN or EU, we can't know what the government is doing in the council.
like, just going with Corbyn holding the government accountable for example. If the government were to claim new law are due to the UN, he can call bullshit on that in parliament. If they were to say that they fought very hard to negotiate against something they actually actively pushed for, he can't call bullshit because he doesn't know if that is true or not.
I think that is more an impression created by the way European news media tend to neglect EU politics
Negotiations are frequently held behind closed doors. The opaque nature of the European Council is a different issue from the general neglect of EU politics.
Though I note that the latter is partly due to the former and the general structure of the EU. Neither the Council nor the Commission are directly elected, and the Parliament has no legislative initiative. The most open part of EU politics has no power to debate the direction and goals of the EU, so why care what happens there?
The members of Council are the elected governments of the member states
If you think all chambers and the government should be directly elected, that would be the US model, but it's very different from how most European political systems operate
Also I would argue that this is a very wrong view of the European Parliament
There will always be an Other boogeyman to help governments shield themselves from accountability or efforts to do ___. If it isn't a higher level of domestic Government then it's an international acronym. If it isn't an international acronym it's 'the market' writ large or something else like that. There's always another red herring.
Hell, wasn't a major driving policy complaint about the EU with immigration something that the UK literally had 100% control over and just never bothered to alter?
Huh that is exactly the problem dude. The government wanting something and then pretending the EU wants it and they're powerless to stop it.
And leaving the EU doesn't change that. Only now it's the mean old UN or EFTA or something else.
But there aren't any other international acronyms that can write laws for member states. Sure, governments will try to avoid accountability but there aren't any other ways they can do so easily.
International treaties are binding law with enforcement mechanisms. The WTO promulgates rules or decisions that bar certain trade laws from being enacted or enforceable without losing out on the treaty's benefits. And pulling out of the EU won't actually make the Government more accountable because they'll blame something else for their inaction. Westminster blamed the EU for something it had no power over. Calling bullshit on that won't be more effective when they claim another body that isn't doing anything to stop them is really to blame.
The UN has zero power over anyone's domestic affairs. And nobody is obligated to enter into treaties and treaties aren't organizations. EU members are obligated to adopt EU law or quit the organization.
And fair point about the WTO, but these criticisms very much apply to the WTO too. If anything the WTO is worse in some regards.
And? People have literally blamed the UN for bike lanes. The fact that it doesn't actually prevent the government from doing something won't stop the government from shifting blame. Like it literally did with not implementing tighter immigration rules that were completely allowed by the EU. The EU didn't bar them, but somehow it was still the EU's fault for barring them. What about that will change next month? Calling it bullshit will take marginally fewer sentences?
I mean, the obvious problem is that you can't call bullshit now. We don't know if the government is pushing hard for something in the council or not. We can know if new laws are to blame on the UN or EU, we can't know what the government is doing in the council.
like, just going with Corbyn holding the government accountable for example. If the government were to claim new law are due to the UN, he can call bullshit on that in parliament. If they were to say that they fought very hard to negotiate against something they actually actively pushed for, he can't call bullshit because he doesn't know if that is true or not.
I think that is more an impression created by the way European news media tend to neglect EU politics
Negotiations are frequently held behind closed doors. The opaque nature of the European Council is a different issue from the general neglect of EU politics.
Though I note that the latter is partly due to the former and the general structure of the EU. Neither the Council nor the Commission are directly elected, and the Parliament has no legislative initiative. The most open part of EU politics has no power to debate the direction and goals of the EU, so why care what happens there?
@Julius, I think you're conflating two separate discussion tangents running through here; the earlier one you joined about the perceived possibility of democratic reform being the source of the split among the left regarding the EU, and a latter one about how government has and will continue to operate using a post-truth mindset. If I'm following correctly, what @moniker was talking about regarding immigration has nothing to do with what EU policy the UK tried to change within the council or how transparent such matters are; the claim that has been made by several people in this thread over the past year was that under Customs Union and Single Market policy the UK government could have implemented tighter controls than they had but they never did, which would show that their claims that it was because of the EU are a lie. I don't know whether that's correct, but as I understand it the EU makes all the rules about stuff like that publicly available, and UK immigration law is as well, so it's completely unrelated to your point about the democratic merits of the council. moniker's saying that even though it was all verifiable, they lied about it anyway, and got away with it, thus they will continue to lie.
So I asked this a year ago, but I figured why not expand it for greater context; What are the chances this ends great britain?
Specifically, I'm curious about the odds of the constituent nations of GB (norther ireland, scotland, whales) susceding from the union in order to try and protect themselves from what seems to be mostly a case of english insanity.
No one knows. There's no way of any constituent nation avoiding Brexit unless it's cancelled. There's no way they can leave the UK without something like a referendum. I suspect once the damage of Brexit starts to make itself felt the SNP will start up the campaign for Independence again. Welsh independence isn't as far advanced as a cause, and in NI who knows? The sectarian divide might trump any pro or anti EU sentiment. A campaign for reunification once NI feels the pinch might take off.
It's a question with no real answers anyone will be able to provide right now. I'd say the breakup of the union is certainly more likely.
So I asked this a year ago, but I figured why not expand it for greater context; What are the chances this ends great britain?
Specifically, I'm curious about the odds of the constituent nations of GB (norther ireland, scotland, whales) susceding from the union in order to try and protect themselves from what seems to be mostly a case of english insanity.
If there's a no-deal brexit, I would be surprised if Scotland doesn't at least have a vote on ending the Union with England.
Britain Elects is an aggregator, not a pollster. They report results of polls conducted by a lot of different people, and occasionally summarise and average them.
Edit: in fact, they usefully retweeted this the other day
Britain Elects is an aggregator, not a pollster. They report results of polls conducted by a lot of different people, and occasionally summarise and average them.
Edit: in fact, they usefully retweeted this the other day
No one knows. There's no way of any constituent nation avoiding Brexit unless it's cancelled. There's no way they can leave the UK without something like a referendum. I suspect once the damage of Brexit starts to make itself felt the SNP will start up the campaign for Independence again. Welsh independence isn't as far advanced as a cause, and in NI who knows? The sectarian divide might trump any pro or anti EU sentiment. A campaign for reunification once NI feels the pinch might take off.
It's a question with no real answers anyone will be able to provide right now. I'd say the breakup of the union is certainly more likely.
The Scottish Parliament (minority SNP administration that has recently passed it's budget very barely with Scottish Green party help) voted for a 2nd Scottish Independence referendum in March 2017, the Westminster government has just consistently told them to bugger off and that it's not going to happen until Brexit has happened at a bare minimum.
Almost everyone I know had already voted for independence in 2014, only my most elderly relatives voted against it and most of them have now died in the meantime. Every unionist I know is dismayed and just refuses to talk about what is happening with Brexit, I think they can't believe the naked stupidity that is being displayed. I still can't get the idea that Brexit is happening to solidly line up in my head, I just shout at the T.V. whenever I catch a BBC news story with some lying smug twat talking about how the EU is going to have to come back to the renegotiating table.
If Scotland was to leave the UK and rejoin the EU would there need to be some sort of border/checks between Scotland and England?
Just fix up Hadrian's wall.
This would technically be a border between “most of England” and “Scotland and a few bits of England”, but as I’d be on the Scottish side I’m all for it.
It's worth pointing out that though the SNP make up a minority administration in the Scottish parliament, the parliament as a whole is still pro-independence due to the presence of the Scottish Greens, who are formally pro-indy (and hold six of the 129 seats, one more than the Lib Dems).
This is a particularly irritating blind spot/recurring lie from May, who routinely insists that because the SNP don't hold a majority, there's no mandate for a second referendum.
Honestly the pigs ear that Westminster/Tory Party has made of leaving the EU will make Scottish Independence really difficult to work in the seamless way that I had hoped would happen with the rest of the UK in the EU. If indy had happened in 2014, despite the proclamations of border posts and problems I had hoped that the Islands of Great Britain and Ireland would continue to operate without issue as normal, everyone in the EU and because of the geography Scotland would not have to join Schengen same as Ireland hasn't.
Sadly Westminister is going to fuck us either way so I'm not really sure what we're supposed to do. An independent Scotland in the EU might increase pressure on them to stay in or rejoin the customs union. Which is why I don't believe May will permit a vote any time soon. Can't have Scots sabotaging their shit sandwich when they worked so hard on it.
Posts
Huh that is exactly the problem dude. The government wanting something and then pretending the EU wants it and they're powerless to stop it.
But there aren't any other international acronyms that can write laws for member states. Sure, governments will try to avoid accountability but there aren't any other ways they can do so easily.
I'm an American and have been watching this with more and more interest. It's hard for me to glean political subtexts of another country, so I'm sorry if I'm off base here, but the narrative of this guy seems that the EU is going to destroy the Great British Empire through a ameba-like annexation of their sovereign lands.
It seems that he doesn't understand that in 1997 Hong Kong was handed to China, and on that day the Great British Empire died. He now resides on a little island that's smaller than my state of Wisconsin. A state, mind you, I spent a few hours to cross so I could have a date in Minnesota. Those days of having far flung colonies and companies so powerful they have their own military are over. Speaking on behalf on a country that was once was under British rule, I want to let him know that the planet is shrinking, and it's getting smaller every day. Talking to my friend in Japan, who is 6,168 miles away, requires 5 clicks of a mouse, or two taps on my phone. There is no war, and we need learn to snuggle with our neighbors. Heck, my neigbor's Illinois, so it's not *that* bad.
Of course, when we have space colonies, it will be this crap all over again until someone accidentally drops a Lagrangian colony on Australia.
I forgot the point I was making...
And leaving the EU doesn't change that. Only now it's the mean old UN or EFTA or something else.
International treaties are binding law with enforcement mechanisms. The WTO promulgates rules or decisions that bar certain trade laws from being enacted or enforceable without losing out on the treaty's benefits. And pulling out of the EU won't actually make the Government more accountable because they'll blame something else for their inaction. Westminster blamed the EU for something it had no power over. Calling bullshit on that won't be more effective when they claim another body that isn't doing anything to stop them is really to blame.
What? The empire died with Suez.
There is a war on, a quiet one of authoritarian states on the liberal order, and that's why we need the EU.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
I stand corrected. I was going by when the last colony left British hands.
Reuters is a News Wire service
Oh never mind, carry on
The UN has zero power over anyone's domestic affairs. And nobody is obligated to enter into treaties and treaties aren't organizations. EU members are obligated to adopt EU law or quit the organization.
And fair point about the WTO, but these criticisms very much apply to the WTO too. If anything the WTO is worse in some regards.
There is definitely a strong component of misplaced Empire nostalgia in a lot of the leave narratives, but painting the situation as the result merely of a few stuck-in-the-past farts refusing to catch up with the modern world is ... an extremely limited perspective.
And? People have literally blamed the UN for bike lanes. The fact that it doesn't actually prevent the government from doing something won't stop the government from shifting blame. Like it literally did with not implementing tighter immigration rules that were completely allowed by the EU. The EU didn't bar them, but somehow it was still the EU's fault for barring them. What about that will change next month? Calling it bullshit will take marginally fewer sentences?
I mean, the obvious problem is that you can't call bullshit now. We don't know if the government is pushing hard for something in the council or not. We can know if new laws are to blame on the UN or EU, we can't know what the government is doing in the council.
like, just going with Corbyn holding the government accountable for example. If the government were to claim new law are due to the UN, he can call bullshit on that in parliament. If they were to say that they fought very hard to negotiate against something they actually actively pushed for, he can't call bullshit because he doesn't know if that is true or not.
There's a handy list there, in movie trailer voiceover form:
Steam | XBL
Yes you can, and fact checkers do, but people don't care. At least 52% don't, anyway. Or someone puts their lie on the side of a bus and the truth struggles to catch up.
I think that is more an impression created by the way European news media tend to neglect EU politics
Whether any democratic process is resistant to blatant lies isn't a super productive discussion. Yeah people might still not care, but the ability to at least call bullshit is important still.
Democratic reform of the EU is required regardless of people's gullibility.
Negotiations are frequently held behind closed doors. The opaque nature of the European Council is a different issue from the general neglect of EU politics.
Though I note that the latter is partly due to the former and the general structure of the EU. Neither the Council nor the Commission are directly elected, and the Parliament has no legislative initiative. The most open part of EU politics has no power to debate the direction and goals of the EU, so why care what happens there?
The members of Council are the elected governments of the member states
If you think all chambers and the government should be directly elected, that would be the US model, but it's very different from how most European political systems operate
Also I would argue that this is a very wrong view of the European Parliament
@Julius, I think you're conflating two separate discussion tangents running through here; the earlier one you joined about the perceived possibility of democratic reform being the source of the split among the left regarding the EU, and a latter one about how government has and will continue to operate using a post-truth mindset. If I'm following correctly, what @moniker was talking about regarding immigration has nothing to do with what EU policy the UK tried to change within the council or how transparent such matters are; the claim that has been made by several people in this thread over the past year was that under Customs Union and Single Market policy the UK government could have implemented tighter controls than they had but they never did, which would show that their claims that it was because of the EU are a lie. I don't know whether that's correct, but as I understand it the EU makes all the rules about stuff like that publicly available, and UK immigration law is as well, so it's completely unrelated to your point about the democratic merits of the council. moniker's saying that even though it was all verifiable, they lied about it anyway, and got away with it, thus they will continue to lie.
Sunderland voted heavily for Leave. Good job, fuckwits.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Specifically, I'm curious about the odds of the constituent nations of GB (norther ireland, scotland, whales) susceding from the union in order to try and protect themselves from what seems to be mostly a case of english insanity.
It's a question with no real answers anyone will be able to provide right now. I'd say the breakup of the union is certainly more likely.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
If there's a no-deal brexit, I would be surprised if Scotland doesn't at least have a vote on ending the Union with England.
Kinda proves the whole follow through on Brexit otherwise you'll lose votes ain't working.
Edit: in fact, they usefully retweeted this the other day
(Keiran Pedley works for IpsosMORI)
That was two weeks ago
The new summary is from yesterday
The only new polls since are that Opinium poll (30 Jan - 1 Feb), this Survation poll to 30 Jan:
And these, which are all a couple of weeks old:
http://britainelects.com/polling/westminster/
The Scottish Parliament (minority SNP administration that has recently passed it's budget very barely with Scottish Green party help) voted for a 2nd Scottish Independence referendum in March 2017, the Westminster government has just consistently told them to bugger off and that it's not going to happen until Brexit has happened at a bare minimum.
Almost everyone I know had already voted for independence in 2014, only my most elderly relatives voted against it and most of them have now died in the meantime. Every unionist I know is dismayed and just refuses to talk about what is happening with Brexit, I think they can't believe the naked stupidity that is being displayed. I still can't get the idea that Brexit is happening to solidly line up in my head, I just shout at the T.V. whenever I catch a BBC news story with some lying smug twat talking about how the EU is going to have to come back to the renegotiating table.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
Just fix up Hadrian's wall.
This would technically be a border between “most of England” and “Scotland and a few bits of England”, but as I’d be on the Scottish side I’m all for it.
This is a particularly irritating blind spot/recurring lie from May, who routinely insists that because the SNP don't hold a majority, there's no mandate for a second referendum.